Skip to comments.Ron Paul Has Won
Posted on 11/26/2007 1:54:54 PM PST by rob777
He wont win the nomination. He wont win any primaries. But for Ron Pauls quixotic bid for the White House, its Mission Accomplished.
In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though theyll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.
Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and its slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If its possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a libertarian Democrat, though hes never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.
Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertsons 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.
Not every losing single-issue candidate succeeds like this. Immigration-restrictionists still lack an outlet in the GOP, thanks to Tom Tancredos embarrassing tone-deafness as a candidate. Sam Brownbacks campaign had hoped to galvanize single-issue pro-lifers, but was hobbled by his dry persona. Duncan Hunter looks mostly like a campaign for Secretary of Defense.
Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect theyll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.
Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Pauls small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way I repeat NO WAY they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they arent the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.
As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, heres how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivans writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays dont get stoned to death.
The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.
If theyre serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I dont see any reason why libertarians couldnt embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.
Yes, but it's not a positive image.
I wish your analysis were correct and Ron Paul would draw attention to libertarian principles but his attention has been mainly fueled by his anti-war message. Far more Democrats than libertarians are coming to his support.
I think he has raised the profile. I’m not sure he has raised it in a positive direction.
Yeah, but that profile isn't complimentary. His campaign has done more damage to libertarianism than anything else by connecting it with surrendering in the WOT and appeasement of Islamists rather than what that political movement should be known for -- limited gov't advocacy.
n. 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will
2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action
3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics
Libertarians are for the Freedom of all but the Ragheads in faraway places with hard to pronounce names
Destroy? The only Defense the Liberatarian uses is an all-out frontal assault with HOT AIR weaponry.
It’s of interest to me as well. The problem as I see it is this. Those that agree with Paul’s decent views stand a very good chance of being blackballed as simply another fellow traveler of Paul.
Paul presidential campaign has done nothing for true conservatives as far as I am concerned. No, instead he has given the press grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation and on and on...
His negatives are in the mid-50s among likely voters in Iowa - the more Paul is known, the more he is disliked by his own base.
I think the one thing that Ron Paul running will guarantee is a Democratic victory. Much like Ralph Nadar’s running guaranteed Bush’s election by drawing off votes from then vice-president Al whats his name.
(gad) As long as I don’t have to see the “VOTE RON PAUL” threads any more. Da freak.
Didja read the article?
It starts out observing that Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee - so don’t go into how bad it would be if he is.
The point of the article is that he’s getting rousing the libertarian subset of the Republican party - and that it’s a force to be reconed with.
Ron Paul won’t be the nominee. We know that. Nobody seriously contends he will.
HOWEVER, he’s making it clear that there’s a whole lotta Republicans that agree with him on a lot of issues, and while he won’t “win” by being the nominee (much less POTUS), he has already “won” by garnering lots of support and not being easily dismissed.
There’s a lot of us who, while perhaps put off by some of his comments, agree with him on a LOT of points which other contenders are missing.
Don’t underestimate the influence of the libertarian branch of the Republican party; a successful candidate won’t.
But, why post this article here?
We were defending ourselves in Bosnia? We were defending ourselves in Somalia? Are we defending ourselves in Djibouti, Ghana? Or in the Philipines, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Uganda, Denmark, Cyprus, Germany, Honduras, and Spain?
Ron Paul is rousing the moonbat subset of the Republican party. True constitutionalist as well as true conservatives think his stances are bunk. Republicans fund him in the hopes he runs as a 3rd party candidate and in doing so pulls votes from the Democrats- not because his message “resonates.” He’s given libertarianism a black-eye.
the more Paul is known, the more he is disliked by his own base.
His base pretty much consists of everybody. I don't think Dr. Paul gives a crap about GOP insiders and hacks angry that he's spoiling their fun.
Do you seriously think that the press NEEDS any grounds to dismiss those that support smaller government, less taxation, and so on?
You've got to be kidding me.
Man, I’m so glad I took FReeper’s George W. Bush’s advice and installed ad-blocker on my browers. It’s nice looking at red Xs instead of photo-shopped garbage.
I agree. Ron's vehement anti-war message simply strengthens Democrats, who flock to 'support' him but who, in reality, are hoping to fracture the already-weakened Republican party. The Libertarian small-government message is practically invisible with Ron Paul ranting about Iraq. His suggestions that there is a possibility of 'the government' being involved in the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, simply mark Ron Paul and his libertarianism as part of a 'kook fringe', which benefits no one, least if all, political conservatism.
The concept that Paul has 'won' by losing is fantasy. He hasn't brought libertarian values to the GOP, but simply made himself appear a political lightweight and his libertarianism to be more about isolationism (under the anti-war banner) than a responsible approach to the threat from Islamic fanatics.
Ron Paul has his attributes but he is far from being a libertarian missionary, imparting libertarian 'values' to the heathen GOP minions, as the lead article tries to make us believe. He is a marginal candidate, soon to be blown away in the primary voting and quickly forgotten as the real presidential campaign begins.
And they call the Paulbots “spammers.”
Judging by the latest FR poll results, it’s the contest between Hunter and Thompson that’s splitting the Republican party.
And does it even occur to you to ask WHY the Republican party is already weakened? Do you think it might have something to do with the party’s adoption of the “Clinton Doctrine” of “humanitarian warfare?”
If there is any ad blockers, let me know. That means you have an infected machine. My pics come out of private web space. You have a direct link to the pics.
He’s attracted a lot of nuts. Temporarily.
The press is enjoying the Ron Paul dynamic right now. Just wait until he isn’t positioned to take down conservative Republicans and you’ll see what I’m predicting.
While the press does diss conservatives, it’s never advisable to see them given another club with which to further that cause.
he has already won by garnering lots of support and not being easily dismissed.
Your statement doesn’t convince me. The same thing could be said about Algore-global warming, gay marriage, open borders, gun control, Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton-racism, etc.
That is, unless one considers winning differently than I do. No protest campaign is foolish enuf to eliminate all positions that others can support.
Ooo wah, ooo wah cool, cool kitty Tell us about the boy from New York City Ooo wah, ooo wah c'mon kitty Tell us about the boy from New York City
I agree Jim.
I'd never thought I'd see the day when supporting federalism and the Constitution in its original intent became "moonbatty."
True constitutionalist as well as true conservatives think his stances are bunk.
How many more statements are you going to pull from your anus?
Republicans fund him
No Republicans, corporations, globalists, or leftist organizations are funding Dr. Paul.
in the hopes he runs as a 3rd party candidate
He has stated millions of times he's not running as a 3rd party candidate. But you knew that already. You want Paul to run as a 3rd party candidate so the GOP will have a scapegoat when they lose.
and in doing so pulls votes from the Democrats- not because his message resonates.
Mind telling me why leftists would support someone who's the polar opposite of their beliefs?
Hes given libertarianism a black-eye.
You mean he's given the pro-dopers, pro-open borders, anti-war kook big L libertarians black-eyes, not the small-l libertarians who make up the bulk of his support.
Wishful thinking? Not on my part.
I believe you are correct. It is the Democrat liberaltarians coming to support him in greater numbers than even the Neo-Nazis.
Duncan Hunter is a non-starter. Rasmussen shows him with less than 1% which is hardly a threat to Thompson, who is at 13% (tied with Romney).
And does it even occur to you to ask WHY the Republican party is already weakened? Do you think it might have something to do with the partys adoption of the Clinton Doctrine of humanitarian warfare?
I think it has to do with the free-spending Republican congress - that was defeated in 2006 - (we showed them) and the stupid stands on illegal immigration taken by the Bush administration and some Republican congressional Representatives and Senators last summer. The liberalism of Rudy Giuliani, the Republican leader in the GOP presidential nomination 'horse race', is also a dividing factor.
However, I believe that the majority of conservatives will bind together to support and vote for the Republican candidate that is selected via primary to run against the putative Democrat nominee, Marxist Hillary Clinton, who makes Giuliani's 'liberal' positions on 'cultural issues' look a lot less scary compared to her determined socialist plans for this country. I refuse to act like a petulant whiner and give up my right to vote next November because the GOP nominee isn't exactly to my liking. The '08 presidential election is too important for that kind of childishness and frivolous candidates like Ron Paul with his 'get out of Iraq' message and flirtation with 9/11 'government conspiracy' theories simply waste everyone's time.
Actually it's having the opposite effect. Paul has exposed the Democrats' anti-war hypocrisy, and in turn most of the independents who voted for the Democrats in the mid-terms are angry and disappointed. They're now backing Paul.
The extreme left - the Code Pinkers, etc. are still behind Hillary & Obama. They support things like using our military for "peaceful" purposes, such as intervening in Darfur. Paul opposes this, and whatever amount of leftists that are supporting Paul are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find out he's not a pacifist.
who flock to 'support' him but who, in reality, are hoping to fracture the already-weakened Republican party.
The Republican Party is fractured because it gave the middle finger to fiscal conservatives & right-leaning populists for six years. It is already weak because people believe in fighting wars and getting them over with rather than trying to spread "democracy" to a bunch of heathens. Democrats had nothing to do with it.
The Libertarian small-government message is practically invisible with Ron Paul ranting about Iraq.
Dr. Paul has outlined his policies on dozens of other issues. The Iraq war is prominent because of the spending on it. Perhaps you should visit his online library, rather than getting the spin from the establishment who highlights his foreign policy views to make him seem like a kook.
His suggestions that there is a possibility of 'the government' being involved in the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, simply mark Ron Paul and his libertarianism as part of a 'kook fringe'
He never "suggested" or implied any such thing.
I’d never thought I’d see the day when supporting federalism and the Constitution in its original intent became “moonbatty.”
How many more statements are you going to pull from your anus?
No Republicans, corporations, globalists, or leftist organizations are funding Dr. Paul.
He has stated millions of times he’s not running as a 3rd party candidate. But you knew that already. You want Paul to run as a 3rd party candidate so the GOP will have a scapegoat when they lose.
Mind telling me why leftists would support someone who’s the polar opposite of their beliefs?
You mean he’s given the pro-dopers, pro-open borders, anti-war kook big L libertarians black-eyes, not the small-l libertarians who make up the bulk of his support.
Absolutism is so “Ron Paul”
Al Gore is a “rock star” to the average young Sheeple. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not only household names everywhere, they’re heroes in the Black community.
I think you just proved his point - if you wind up being better-known, you have, in a way, won.
Not in my opinion. Gore etal. may think they have won, once again proving their disdain for out country. The country has clearly lost.
Well, you’re going to have to care what the GOP insiders and hacks think when you’re trying to get their support.
Don’t EVER ask me to back up what I say again, took forever to find:
“Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Romney is viewed favorably by 76%, Huckabee by 65%, Giuliani by 74%, and Thompson by 73%. Those numbers reflect a six-point gain for Giuliani while impressions of the other candidates is essentially unchanged from a month ago.
McCains numbers, while still weak, have improved over the past month. Among Republicans likely to participate in the caucus, 61% have a favorable opinion of the Arizona Senator while 38% have an unfavorable view. A month ago, just 53% offered a positive assessment of the man once presumed to be the GOP frontrunner.
Ron Paul is viewed favorably by 33% and unfavorably by 55%”
Ahem! Would that be like the Ross Perot movement? Ross was a lot bigger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.